Email

TIMELY elections are, indeed, important for the democratic process. But it is equally important for citizens to be able to make an informed decision. For that, the electorate must know that the candidates are credible and bound by a moral code of behaviour as enshrined in the Constitution. Democratic accountability means empowering citizens to reject corrupt and ineffective rulers and to be able to choose better representatives.

In suspending the decision of the Lahore High Court that had restored the mandatory information and declarations of assets required from the candidates, the apex court appears to have bypassed a fundamental principle of democratic accountability. The chief justice’s stance that restoring the old nomination forms could cause a delay in the upcoming polls may not come across as convincing.

It is imperative to ensure that the elections are held on time, but they must also be free, fair and transparent. It is vital that the electorate is provided with complete personal information about the candidates and their assets. While in previous elections, it was a mandatory requirement, the provision was not included in the new electoral law.

It is inexcusable the way political parties came together to defend the controversial change in poll laws.

“The lack of disclosure and information ... essentially means that a voter will not have the required information on the basis of which an informed decision can be made,” declared Justice Ayesha Malik of the Lahore High Court in her judgement. Denial of a fundamental right that enables the electorate to make an informed assessment of aspiring lawmakers raises questions about the transparency of the coming elections.

But the chief justice has set aside the ruling on the grounds that restoration of old forms at this stage could delay the polls. “Parliament is autonomous; what can we do when it has already legislated?” he declared. Indeed, it is the prerogative of parliament to make laws; but it is the responsibility of the judiciary to protect the fundamental rights of citizens. Moreover, the additional requirement of information may not necessarily delay the polls as being feared by the court and some political leaders.

According to some legal experts, the nomination forms can be uploaded in no time and can easily be filled within the stipulated time for the filing of the nomination papers. Many are using the bogey of ‘democracy under threat’ and conspiracy theories to cover up the questionable and undemocratic action by parliament.

It is inexcusable the way all political parties came together to defend the controversial change in the electoral laws that would allow even people with criminal records to stand in the elections. The plea that the Lahore High Court ruling came too close to the elections is also not relevant. It seemed a deliberate move by the PML-N government to drag on the case. It took six months for the government to submit its response to the court.

The controversial amendment in the Election Act was passed by parliament last year. Now the candidates are not obliged to provide information about their tax returns, dual nationality status, education and source of income. It makes them virtually above the law, further tarnishing the image of our civilian political leadership.

With this amendment in place, no judicial action can be taken against those hiding their assets and details about their source of income. The amendment has helped remove the sword of disqualification hanging over corrupt lawmakers and other political leaders. Not surprisingly, the bill had received support from political parties across the board. The way the bill was passed by parliament also raises questions about it legality.

According to some legal experts, parliament had infringed on the Election Commission’s authority in the matter. The Lahore High Court in its ruling asserted that while parliament can make laws to regulate the conduct of elections, “the ultimate authority and responsibility to ensure free and fair elections is of the ECP”.

In fact, the ECP had initially questioned the authority of parliament to change the electoral rules. But later, it changed its stance. The commission also became a party in the petition to the Supreme Court challenging the Lahore High Court decision.

During the hearing of the petition, the ECP’s attorney admitted that mandatory provisions of the law had been ignored and vital information not been provided for in the forms. In fact, the ECP in a letter to the parliamentary committee on electoral reforms requested that it should be heard by the committee before any draft was prepared. However, the request was ignored.

Through this amendment, political parties may have protected their leaders and lawmakers, but it will have serious implications for democracy in the country. It has certainly damaged the image of parliament and elected representatives.

Rule of law and accountability are two important pillars of a liberal democracy. A major weakness of the democratic process in Pakistan is that lawmakers are not bound by code of moral behaviour enforced by judicial authority. Nothing could be worse than the growing public perception that a major endeavour of parliament is to provide protection to the misdeeds of politicians.

These two pillars ensure good governance. They are also essential for the development of democratic institutions. While the country is close to achieving an important milestone in the second consecutive transition from one elected government to another, there is a greater need for making the election process more democratic and transparent. The electoral law amendment has shrunk the space for growth of democratic values. It would make elected representative less accountable. Elections would become controversial if the amendment is not reversed.

The restoration of the old nomination papers would certainly improve democracy in the country. The demand for greater transparency in the electoral process must not be misconstrued as a conspiracy to postpone the elections. We may be very close to the polls, but it is still not too late for the restoration of the old form. Voters must be given due respect.

Comments (32) Closed

A bigger bench of the SC needs to take up this issue to prevent the confusion that now has become a recipe for disaster for years to come.

Recommend0

Aamir

Jun 06, 2018 07:33am

Good analysis. Democracy in Pakistan is progress well. I can see positive signs of civilian and parliamentary supremacy in Pakistan. Pakistan Zindabad.

Recommend0

Akram Malik

Jun 06, 2018 07:34am

I fully agree, that it is important for the voters to know more about their candidates. what they owned, what their credit was worth and how they acquired their wealth, so they could then judge, if they would be suitable to represent them.

Recommend0

MSA

Jun 06, 2018 07:36am

The article is very enlightening. I agree with the author that clean and clear elections are more important than the quick ones. There is still time that the CJP can change his mind. Otherwise, the whole nation will be disappointed.

Recommend0

Munir ahmad

Jun 06, 2018 07:49am

Fully agree with the author.

Recommend0

Hugh slaman

Jun 06, 2018 07:57am

Excellent article. I could not agree more. I hope the apex court takes notice and revisits this decision. In the days of modern technology, it is not at all difficult to make changes to a form and print out new copies.

Recommend0

Khaled

Jun 06, 2018 07:57am

Excellent analysis, but who is listening, leave alone reading . As regard voters respect, who cares?

Recommend0

Feryal

Jun 06, 2018 08:02am

Well said, it is a shame how all the rotten eggs came to same basket

Recommend0

Prateik

Jun 06, 2018 08:28am

None of the political parties want mandatory information and declarations of assets required from the candidates. They are hiding under the cloak of timely elections.

Recommend0

Saad Khan

Jun 06, 2018 08:51am

Good analysis, I think CJP will listen voices of the society and restore the old nomination form.

Recommend0

Aamir

Jun 06, 2018 08:51am

Sir you are absolutely right. However, people have (and will) never considered these factors for voting, otherwise we would have seen elimination of corrupt politicians (or at least some progress). We are still disappointed by this decision.

Recommend0

sab

Jun 06, 2018 09:14am

It is quite surprising to see that a whole lot of liberal and democracy loving analysts and journalists have backed the new form. They are simply bypassing the whole concept of oversight.

Recommend0

Anwaar Malik

Jun 06, 2018 09:29am

The stance of the learned writer is quite logical and as per the aspirations of the populace. The new electoral form seems to be based on ill conceived notions and concealment of facts is tantamount to travesty of fair-play.

Recommend0

PrakashG

Jun 06, 2018 09:35am

I think the parliament has done the right thing. It should have been obvious to the author that this kind of information is likely to become the cause of frivolous lawsuits and provide a handle to certain institutions in Pakistan to meddle with democracy.

Recommend0

Aafiyat nazar

Jun 06, 2018 09:41am

Thanks sir for such a wonderful article....appalled by the Supreme Court decision, which makes the elected representatives unaccountable..

Recommend0

ahmad alvi

Jun 06, 2018 10:03am

without proper information about candidate i am not going to vote

Recommend0

Syed Ahmed

Jun 06, 2018 10:25am

Two thumbs up. One of the rare occasions when I whole heartedly agree with Mr. Zahid Hussain.

Recommend0

Tahir

Jun 06, 2018 10:57am

At least someone has written this nice piece after reading the decision. I was very upset listening opinion of those who did not read the LHC decision. I am agree with Mr. Zahid Hussain for the points he raised.

Recommend0

Amin Junejo

Jun 06, 2018 11:04am

Very much agreed..they are using parliament in their own wrongful means and call it a democracy!

Recommend0

Abdul Zaheer

Jun 06, 2018 11:59am

To show transparency of electoral process, must be restored old nomination form. Otherwise??????

Recommend0

Mekal Faruki

Jun 06, 2018 12:02pm

Pakistan must amend its Constitution to create a One-Party State like China. One-Party States are better for national security, they prevent foreign agents from operating in country. Multiple party States are victims of Western colonialism where local politicians are bought by foreign powers to destroy the country. China's success is due in large part to the political stability of its One-Party System.

Recommend0

Tanveer Bhutto

Jun 06, 2018 01:51pm

Yes agreed, This is just ridiculous step taken by the parliamentarians , the Pakistani politicians going through their personal interest however, they should have gone for the public interest.

Recommend0

Syed

Jun 06, 2018 06:31pm

Good one, the writer has expressed the feeling of a common citizen. A fair and free election is more important than the timely election.

Recommend0

ARYA

Jun 06, 2018 08:57pm

The changes brought out by parliament are one year old. Why no attention was paid earlier? With such pro-active CJP, amendments should have been termed illegal. As far political parties agreeing to the changes in unison, it proves that politics is game of scoundrels.

Recommend0

Haq

Jun 06, 2018 09:21pm

A very good analysis of the malicious move by the so-called parliamentarians regarding the charges in the nomination form. The rapidity with which the legislators passed the bill leaves no question about the moral bankruptcy of the legislators. It's indeed a shameless action of the assembly.

Recommend0

Parvez

Jun 06, 2018 11:14pm

Well said .... and correctly said.

Recommend0

Lal khan

Jun 07, 2018 12:02am

Great. I was having a moment of Truth lately. This conniving act of dropping these from nomination papers are kind of reason why our democracy is weaker. And how strangely all of them come together on it. Including PTI-either that or they did not even bother to read it.

Recommend0

Iftikhar Khan

Jun 07, 2018 12:22am

No tangible benefits from this exercise of seeking additional information in writing. Consider the following points:

1) Additional information about candidates as demanded during 2013 elections did not stop any one from contesting or winning elections. The class of parliamentarians in National Assembly was no better or worse than the one before in 2008.

2) Most of the information asked to submit is usually known at local level among the voters. Additionally, such information, if bad, is spread by opponents in each constituency in pamphlets and public meetings. Such information is mostly attractive to outsiders, for example, people of Karachi might be more interested about such information of the candidates in Lahore and vice versa but for the locals, if MQM is to win in Karachi, this information is useless about MQM candidates.

3) Almost half of voters are illiterate (higher percentage for women), they get all the information verbally. Forms and affidavits mean nothing to them.

No point making it a big issue, in practical terms!

Recommend0

SALMAN ALI

Jun 07, 2018 07:57am

SC has now asked for Affidavits. Should we now praise CJP for both keeping Elections on track and pressure on Politicians in their financial affairs?

Recommend0

Syed Ahmed

Jun 07, 2018 10:21am

With the reversal of the SC's stance in the matter, shortly after Mr. Zahid Hussain's column was published, Mr. Hussain stands vindicated. Many voices for an urgent review of the SC's stance were raised but none as well reasoned as Mr. Hussain's. Salute!